Global warming

[Lennart Hyland]

I've heard that the CO2 absorbationspectrum is barely changing when the amount of CO2 is doubled.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2_absorption.gif

Doesnt that mean if CO2 is doubled, our temperature is almost still the same?

[varwoche]

The quote you ascribe to Varoche is from my reference Correct, though it doesn't get you off the hook even slightly. To summarize:

You claimed that volcanoes under Greenland were at play, and linked to the article as evidence (post 2739). Whereas the lead scientist is quoted: It could be that there’s a volcano down there but we think it’s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assumed you overlooked the quote (post 2742).

But you admitted to having seen the quote and to willfully having distorted the article (post 2743).

Of course the fact that you constantly distort the truth is hardly a surprise to anyone who has followed this thread. However, it's useful to get such a clear, distilled example, allowing casual readers to be aware of your dishonest tactics.

[mhaze]

Correct, though it doesn't get you off the hook even slightly. To summarize:

You claimed that volcanoes under Greenland were at play, and linked to the article as evidence (post 2739). Whereas the lead scientist is quoted: Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assumed you overlooked the quote (post 2742).

But you admitted to having seen the quote and to willfully having distorted the article (post 2743).Originally Posted by mhaze
Volcanic action under NE Greenland (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice;_ylt=ApZ655aHtp4hZZF svFaeMwQDW7oF), also not told us by DailyGreen.

if you read the entire article you would have seen:
Quote:
It could be that there’s a volcano down there but we think it’s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.
Of course the fact that you constantly distort the truth is hardly a surprise to anyone who has followed this thread. However, it's useful to get such a clear, distilled example, allowing casual readers to be aware of your dishonest tactics.

Morality police, are you? Of the type that grasps at straws, clutching at shards of interpretation to discredit those whom do not hold your narrow views.

Those thin reeds are hard to stand on, but go on with it. Standing on the shoulders of dwarfs and trolls is much easier, and allows seeing a bit farther.

Yes, we could split up volcanos, volcanic thermal energy, geothermal energy, add infinitum, and dance around the subject. But the basic fact remains, that the article concerns "energy from below", not energy from greenhouse gas warming, or for that matter, any sort of "energy from above" including solar.

DailyGreen was being disingenous and misinforming, presenting only man made factors as causative in Greenland's melt. Apparently you think that such disinformation is worth defending. Perhaps because it is so common in AGW arguments, rhetoric and ideology. Thank you for defending DailyGreen, albeit weakly.

[mhaze]

What may be the oldest known remains of a polar bear have been uncovered on the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic.

The jawbone was pulled from sediments that suggest the specimen is perhaps 110,000 or 130,000 years old. Professor Olafur Ingolfsson from the University of Iceland says tests show it was an adult, possibly a female.

"And what's interesting about that is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was much warmer than the Holocene (the present).

"....despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear." (more) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7132220.stm)

[a_unique_person]

I've heard that the CO2 absorbationspectrum is barely changing when the amount of CO2 is doubled.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2_absorption.gif

Doesnt that mean if CO2 is doubled, our temperature is almost still the same?

That is why early scientists didn't believe it would be a problem. Hence the discovery of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' was a surprise. Kind of the galileo event of last century, to steal a meme from the deniers.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

[mhaze]

I've heard that the CO2 absorbationspectrum is barely changing when the amount of CO2 is doubled.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2_absorption.gif

Doesnt that mean if CO2 is doubled, our temperature is almost still the same?

Yes.

[a_unique_person]

Yes.

No

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Don't forget, also, what does 'barely change' mean? It depends on the context. If you cook something in the oven at 350, it doesn't make much difference if I set it to 355.

If my body temperature is supposed to be 37C. If it goes up by 5C, I'll be dead or close to it.

[mhaze]

You actually edited out " Not even you can blame the DailyGreen for the Bali Conference and its outcome." In front of everybody's eyes.

The Bali Conference has had a lot of mention. Do you have any comment to make on it?

More Bali bs?

Fortnight Of The Undead: Bali Diary (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc)By Lord Christopher Mockton in Nusa Dua, Bali

I nearly didn’t go to Bali. The UN, which had not wanted any dissent at this carefully-staged event, rejected my journalistic credentials out of hand, and without explanation. However, a non-government organization came to the rescue and the high priests didn’t dare to say No a second time. That would have looked too obvious. I proved my journo-cred by writing a major article in the Jakarta Post on day 1 of the conference, cheekily claiming my share of the Nobel Prize because the IPCC had made a correction to its latest Holy Book at my suggestion, and concluding that, since our influence on the climate is a non-problem, and the correct approach to a non-problem is to do nothing, my fellow-participants should have the courage to do nothing and push off home.(more) (http://www.icecap.us/)

[a_unique_person]

Monckton amuses himself by contributing nothing but self important hubris to the debate. He is a clown. You can safely ignore anything he says.

[BobK]

It is generally agreed the current total effect of all GHGs makes the earth about 33C warmer that it would be otherwise. Middle of the IPCC range for the effect of a doubling of CO2 is about 3C.

What so what happens when current CO2 doubles is the total GHG effect will be 36C. But, what happens with the following CO2 doubling? If the effect is logarithmic as has been suggested, the effect will be less than 3C. Which implies that the previous doubling to get up to current values had a more than 3C effect. Something doesn't sound right.

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

For ease of figuring I will consider each doubling of CO2 as being equal to 3C. Starting with an atmosphere containing 1ppm of CO2 eight doublings results in 256ppm(LIA) and nine doublings results in 512ppm which is about 140ppm high than now. Eight doublings at 3C per doubling = 24C and nine doublings = 27C. This leaves less than 10C for the effect of all other GHGs including the elephant in the room, water vapor.

It seems to me when they say each doubling of CO2 causes 3C or anything close to that figure, there is a whole lot of conjecture being made from climate models that may show that effect.

[CapelDodger]

More Bali bs?

That's not a comment.

Fortnight Of The Undead: Bali Diary (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MoncktononBali2007.doc)By Lord Christopher Mockton in Nusa Dua, Bali


I nearly didn’t go to Bali. The UN, which had not wanted any dissent at this carefully-staged event, rejected my journalistic credentials out of hand, and without explanation. However, a non-government organization came to the rescue and the high priests didn’t dare to say No a second time. That would have looked too obvious. I proved my journo-cred by writing a major article in the Jakarta Post on day 1 of the conference, cheekily claiming my share of the Nobel Prize because the IPCC had made a correction to its latest Holy Book at my suggestion, and concluding that, since our influence on the climate is a non-problem, and the correct approach to a non-problem is to do nothing, my fellow-participants should have the courage to do nothing and push off home.(more) (http://www.icecap.us/)


And that's a quote.

Repeating myself here, but do you have any comment to make on the Bali Conference?

[David Rodale]

No

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Don't forget, also, what does 'barely change' mean? It depends on the context. If you cook something in the oven at 350, it doesn't make much difference if I set it to 355.

If my body temperature is supposed to be 37C. If it goes up by 5C, I'll be dead or close to it.

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?

RealClimate has become your #1 source for "reliable" information recently. Is there any particular reason for that? Maybe for lack of peer reviewed articles to support AGW? Are all blogs acceptable to be used as evidence, or just RC? Or is the the real reason they are simply pimping their unsubstantiated opinions to the weak minded who can't discern fact from fiction, blindly following their every utterance. Is it comforting to know RC censors, edits and filters posts? The reason Steve McIntyre started his own blog was RC (Mann & Co.) refused to post his replies. That actually resulted in a positive move since ClimateAudit is exposing the hockey stick for what it is; junk science.

RC's parlor games and deceptive verbiage their loyalist groupies never question are well documented. Here is one example:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/climate-science-responds-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/
In conclusion, Real Climate, rather than engaging in the science issues raised by the photographic documentation of such a key data set in the assessment of climate change, has elected to be defensive and has sought to transfer this issue into a political debate. I invite Real Climate, therefore, to reconsider their approach to the issue of HCN siting and join in trying to provide improved metadata so that a larger consensus can be reached on its value for the diversity of purposes for which it is used.

There are many more.

[CapelDodger]

What so what happens when current CO2 doubles is the total GHG effect will be 36C. But, what happens with the following CO2 doubling? If the effect is logarithmic as has been suggested, the effect will be less than 3C.

If the effect is logarithmic any doubling will have the same effect. That goes with the territory of being logarithmic - it's a power thing.


Which implies that the previous doubling to get up to current values had a more than 3C effect. Something doesn't sound right.

I noticed that straight away. See above.

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

I suggest you look into what a logarithm is before you indulge yourself.

[a_unique_person]

It is generally agreed the current total effect of all GHGs makes the earth about 33C warmer that it would be otherwise. Middle of the IPCC range for the effect of a doubling of CO2 is about 3C.

What so what happens when current CO2 doubles is the total GHG effect will be 36C. But, what happens with the following CO2 doubling? If the effect is logarithmic as has been suggested, the effect will be less than 3C. Which implies that the previous doubling to get up to current values had a more than 3C effect. Something doesn't sound right.

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

For ease of figuring I will consider each doubling of CO2 as being equal to 3C. Starting with an atmosphere containing 1ppm of CO2 eight doublings results in 256ppm(LIA) and nine doublings results in 512ppm which is about 140ppm high than now. Eight doublings at 3C per doubling = 24C and nine doublings = 27C. This leaves less than 10C for the effect of all other GHGs including the elephant in the room, water vapor.

It seems to me when they say each doubling of CO2 causes 3C or anything close to that figure, there is a whole lot of conjecture being made from climate models that may show that effect.

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

[CapelDodger]

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?

It's widely recognised that a five degree fever is not healthy. Cklimate models don't enter into it. Much the same goes for the culinary arts.

RealClimate has become your #1 source for "reliable" information recently. Is there any particular reason for that? Maybe for lack of peer reviewed articles to support AGW? Are all blogs acceptable to be used as evidence, or just RC? Or is the the real reason they are simply pimping their unsubstantiated opinions to the weak minded who can't discern fact from fiction, blindly following their every utterance. Is it comforting to know RC censors, edits and filters posts? The reason Steve McIntyre started his own blog was RC (Mann & Co.) refused to post his replies. That actually resulted in a positive move since ClimateAudit is exposing the hockey stick for what it is; junk science.

RC's parlor games and deceptive verbiage their loyalist groupies never question are well documented. Here is one example:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/climate-science-responds-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/


There are many more.

You started weird, and it just went on getting weirder.

Keep pushing the product, you're really winning people over. Even I'm hard put to respond.

[a_unique_person]

Of course, you have something other than climate models to support your assertions?



I take it from that comment you have not read the link.

[CapelDodger]

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Too sophisticated without the basics, such as what logarithms are :).

Of course, the practical influence of any doubling is not so simple as logarithmic. The CO2 influence is, but the feedbacks depend on different physics (such as evaporation) and on limits (once all the ice has gone, albedo can go no lower).

Not that it'll make much difference after the first doubling, in the longer term. The society that adjusts to survive the first will take the next in its stride.

[CapelDodger]

I take it from that comment you have not read the link.

A link to the science of AGW, with the observations and measurements before climate models were even dreamt of. David Rodale knows that AGW depends only on models, so he doesn't feel the need to read it to respond. It must, somehow, be about climate models. And he has something to say about them.

So anyway, Monkton? The poor sad buggers are still going with Monkton? They're making common ground with whining pseudo-aristocrats That's a pretty empty bench they're having to work with.

From what I hear the drought breaking in your parts turned out to be a false dawn. La Nina conditions not coming up with the usual goods.

[a_unique_person]

A link to the science of AGW, with the observations and measurements before climate models were even dreamt of. David Rodale knows that AGW depends only on models, so he doesn't feel the need to read it to respond. It must, somehow, be about climate models. And he has something to say about them.


It's an interesting read.

We had some heavy drizzle at the weekend for a few hours. Apart from that, nothing for a week. Sydney did get some heavy rain, but unfortunately it also came with hailstones as big as a golf ball, and larger. Several areas were hit very hard.

[mhaze]

That's not a comment. And that's a quote.
Repeating myself here, but do you have any comment to make on the Bali Conference?

Yes. Seeking true comedy (of errors) look to Bali.

[mhaze]

Re your reference.

Weart is just a "historian of science" and doesn't seem to understand in depth some of the material he discusses. Surely for pro AGW view, there is a preferred and better spokesman?

[a_unique_person]

Re your reference.

Weart is just a "historian of science" and doesn't seem to understand in depth some of the material he discusses. Surely for pro AGW view, there is a preferred and better spokesman?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm

You could look him up if you wanted to instead of just getting it wrong.

He has a Ph D in Physics and Astrophysics, but he is also a historian of science. He is more than qualified to take the work of the active and past researchers and present it for us. I have read some of his other work on the web before, and he does an excellent job.



Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1942, he received a B.A. in Physics at Cornell University in 1963 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1968. He then worked for three years at the California Institute of Technology, supported as a Fellow of the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. At Caltech he taught physics, did research on the sun's atmosphere and on ground-based and space-based telescope instrumentation, and published papers in leading scientific journals.



If you compare Weart to someone like Monckton, I know who I'd rather believe.

[mhaze]

Let us do a thought experiment to determine if this doubling figure is reasonable.

For ease of figuring I will consider each doubling of CO2 as being equal to 3C. Starting with an atmosphere containing 1ppm of CO2 eight doublings results in 256ppm(LIA) and nine doublings results in 512ppm which is about 140ppm high than now. Eight doublings at 3C per doubling = 24C and nine doublings = 27C. This leaves less than 10C for the effect of all other GHGs including the elephant in the room, water vapor.

It seems to me when they say each doubling of CO2 causes 3C or anything close to that figure, there is a whole lot of conjecture being made from climate models that may show that effect.

And if we allowed a third of the total greenhouse gas effect to co2, some 11C, we would get a more realistic number for the charge in temp with a doubling of co2.

[a_unique_person]

And if we allowed a third of the total greenhouse gas effect to co2, some 11C, we would get a more realistic number for the charge in temp with a doubling of co2.

And if there were no enhanced effect or positive feedback, you might be right.

[mhaze]

If you compare Weart to someone like Monckton, I know who I'd rather believe.

But your nutter Weart still thinks there is a hockey stick.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

Monckton knows better.

[a_unique_person]

But your nutter Weart still thinks there is a hockey stick.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png

Monckton knows better.

A jumped up self important 'noble' who has taught himself all about the science of global warming, or a PhD Physicist who is in agreement with the majority of scientists researching climate change.

Hmmmmm, tough choice.

[BobK]

Because you came late to this part of the debate, I'll paste the link again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.

They get their middle figure of around 3C for doubling from the climate models. If you look at this IPCC chart (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm) you can readily see the models allow for a equal temperature rise for each doubling. They show both 2x and 4x CO2 in the same chart produced by one of their models. Do you for some reason think they picked their most coprolite model for their chart?

My point was and still is. The chart shows their models must be handling CO2 increase incorrectly. It cannot be a mathematical one-way street. If CO2 has the effect they claim, then CO2 decreases should result in an equivalent negative change in temperature. I showed in my previous post the 3C figure is unrealistically large. Not enough of the 33C temperature effect remains for the other GHGs.

[a_unique_person]

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.

They get their middle figure of around 3C for doubling from the climate models. If you look at this IPCC chart (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm) you can readily see the models allow for a equal temperature rise for each doubling. They show both 2x and 4x CO2 in the same chart produced by one of their models. Do you for some reason think they picked their most coprolite model for their chart?

My point was and still is. The chart shows their models must be handling CO2 increase incorrectly. It cannot be a mathematical one-way street. If CO2 has the effect they claim, then CO2 decreases should result in an equivalent negative change in temperature. I showed in my previous post the 3C figure is unrealistically large. Not enough of the 33C temperature effect remains for the other GHGs.

They aren't modeling a simple directly linked system. Feedback, enhanced greenhouse.

[a_unique_person]

I see you missed the point again. I wasn't talking about band saturation, which is what your link discusses.


I'm confused. Are you saying that if we ignore the enhanced effect, there's only a small effect?

[mhaze]

It's an interesting read.

We had some heavy drizzle at the weekend for a few hours. Apart from that, nothing for a week. Sydney did get some heavy rain, but unfortunately it also came with hailstones as big as a golf ball, and larger. Several areas were hit very hard.

Just curious.

In your save-the-planet vision of Biggie Kyoto Aussies would get the rain they rightfully deserve....

Exactly how?

[mhaze]

I'm confused. Are you saying that if we ignore the enhanced effect, there's only a small effect?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447668425d8cb7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9768)

Hmmm....

[Lennart Hyland]

I've heard that the CO2 absorbationspectrum is barely changing when the amount of CO2 is doubled.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2_absorption.gif

Doesnt that mean if CO2 is doubled, our temperature is almost still the same?

Sorry Guys but I dont really understand your posts/arguments.

So what I wrote is wrong and can someone please explain why its wrong? In a simple way pls :)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

double post

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

A jumped up self important 'noble' who has taught himself all about the science of global warming, or a PhD Physicist who is in agreement with the majority of scientists researching climate change.

Hmmmmm, tough choice.

It shouldn't be

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html))
“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,” the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, “the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” The study further continued, “Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average.”
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.

Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.
Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made catastrophic global warming models. “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models,” reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php))
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.”

Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.


1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38%20))
EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)



4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875))
EXPLICITLY DENIES validity of agw models. See, if cloud effects are omitted, then the models would have fails and won't predict anything.


5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002234.html)) & (LINK (http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed paper finds causes other than man made CO2 emissions.
8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp)) & (LINK (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW (read the pdf, they predict a cooling). If there is a cooling in the next years, as those guys predict in this peer rebviewed study, then by definition there is no AGW.

10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth)) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a))

There is not even a warming anomaly, so no AGW. See, if there are no 20 century anomalies then all models are wrong (again, that's why I posted so many papers that say that the models haven't passed reality check)


A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD)) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. Is consistent with the paper above and not with IPCC.

Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent)) & (LINK (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html)) A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. See above.

[a_unique_person]

Sorry Guys but I dont really understand your posts/arguments.

So what I wrote is wrong and can someone please explain why its wrong? In a simple way pls :)

That's the problem we have, isn't it? As an ordinary member of the public who has been trying to understand this issue for several years now, the more I learn, the more I realise I don't understand.

This is a very complex issue. You could try to understand all that is going on out there in this area of research, but I don't think that's humanly possible. Certainly the scientists themselves have their own specialist areas of research and knowledge, that's how modern science has to work these days.

Now a good scientist in this area could probably give you exactly the explanation you want, but they don't tend to hang around the internet too much debating these topics with the general public. I have a friend who does modelling with the CSIRO, and he told me he tried debating people on the internet, realised they had closed minds and were never going to believe any evidence he came up with, and he just gave it up. He's pretty smaert, so he made the most logical decision you could make in that circumstance, he stopped debating people who weren't actually having a debate. He's got plenty of research to do as it is, and real debates to have with informed scientists on the topic.

Second best is to read the IPCC reports, and then Realclimate. These are the proucts of work by scientists who specialise in these areas of research.

The IPCC reports take years to produce, and you don't get responses from them. Realclimate does respond to the day to day issues raised in the press and internet, but the responses, of course, are opinions, not scientific papers, although they do refer to the research the opinions are based on.

Now, the problem is, how to get a simple response to a very complex problem. You won't get it, because there aren't dedicated teams of scientists out there who are experts in this field who can explain things well who have time to spare cruising all the internet forums answering all kinds of questions.

So you wind up with me, or if you are lucky, someone else who knows more than me but happens to be reading this and feels like answering the question.

I have provided a link to exactly this topic on realclimate, and if you don't understand the answer, then I'm afraid I can't help you much because I don't understand it very well either, so I'm not going to be able to explain it all that well, although I do think I get the gist of it. :)

In this state of confusion, there will however be plenty of people who can give you very simple and plausible answers that will help you doubt the science. This is a very simple thing to do.

FWIW, the link refers to what is called the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect. It refers to the extra CO2 contributing absorption of extra radiation in the atmosphere because it will act in parts of the atmosphere that weren't absorbing radiation before, due to the lower CO2 concentrations. The scientific study started due to observations first made some 50 years ago, and it has come along slowly since then, till about 20 years ago when it was realised it would have a significant impact on the ecology of the planet, not just a minor one.

[a_unique_person]

It shouldn't be



Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.



No, global warming was already happening back then, it was put on hold for a decade or two due to particle pollution having a cooling effect.


Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.


The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.



EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.



Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)



Water vapour is not a forcing, CO2 is. Water vapour is going to rise, as the atmosphere heats up, giving us a positive feedback effect. The direct CO2 forcing is being amplified by water vapour, changes in albedo, et.
[/quote]

etc, etc.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

No, global warming was already happening back then, it was put on hold for a decade or two due to particle pollution having a cooling effect.

Nonsense, this is a 2006 study, “To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The supposed cooling effects were taken into account.



The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.


You are killing your own models. No big sea level rise, no need to worry.
Also, the antartic already had special treatment in the models, but they still fail. look again : "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.



Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real

Again the conclusion:
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century




Water vapour is not a forcing, CO2 is. Water vapour is going to rise, as the atmosphere heats up, giving us a positive feedback effect. The direct CO2 forcing is being amplified by water vapour, changes in albedo, et.



Again, the conclusion:

The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it"


etc, etc.

Easy way to scape ..... the "etc" argument.

[mhaze]

Sorry Guys but I dont really understand your posts/arguments.

So what I wrote is wrong and can someone please explain why its wrong? In a simple way pls :)

Lennart, here is the straight and skinny. What you are referring to is called "climate sensitivity" - what happens to temperatures if CO2 concentration is doubled.

People that think global warming is serious believe that doubling CO2 will cause global average temperatures to increase somewhere from 2C to 6C, and these people often quote a "middle of the road" estimate of 2.5C.

Many other people (like me) think that doubling CO2 will cause only a small increase such as 0.5 to 1.0C.

This is debated back and forth, and it's a bit complicated cause politics gets involved. People call each other names and insult each other quite a bit.

[mhaze]

What are the key premises underlying AGW? Offhand I can think of -

1. Climate sensitivity is 2-6C midpoint 2.5C with 2x CO2
2. Tropospheric equatorial hot spot is predicted
3. There is no urban heat island effect
4. Land based global temperature measurements are accurate
5. Greenland is melting due to AGW
6. Polar bears survival is threatened due to AGW
7. Arctic ice is melting due to AGW
8. South pole is melting (or should melt) due to AGW
9. Animals and birds are migrating northward due to AGW
10. Sea levels are and will rise and flood low lying areas.
11. Natural variability is low for global temperature since the main driver is man made CO2.
12. Solar influence in the last 30 years has not been a factor in AGW.
13. Cooling period 1940-1970 was due to man made pollution; we fixed that by restricting pollution.
14. Temperature rise since 1900 is due to man made CO2 in the atmosphere.
15. No CO2 measurements by chemical or other means taken before 1955 are valid.

Anything else? Anything I've got inaccurate?

[a_unique_person]

Key Tenets Of Agw Belief System



:rolleyes:

[mhaze]

:rolleyes:
[/b]

Okay, I'll add

16. hurricanes
17. droughts.

[mhaze]

Yes. Seeking true comedy (of errors) look to Bali.

Seeking....

Seeking....

Bingo!

From our steadfast friends at Greenie Watch! (http://antigreen.blogspot.com/)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244767308962022.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9779)

[Harpoon]

It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446

[mhaze]

It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446

Yes, Indeed.

Just quickly going through a half dozen of the articles, Ecoworld appears to be a credible, unbiased information source. One example follows.

Glacial Acceleration (http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=443)
- Paul Brown
We only want a revitalized and reasoned debate regarding the extent and the causes of climate change - and what to do about it. We recommend the CO2 alarmists turn some of their wonderful and well-intentioned passion to stopping the catastrophe unfolding as we decimate the rainforests of the Americas, Africa and Asia to grow fuel. If Greenland's icecap does melt someday soon - perhaps it will be because within a few short decades we dried and heated the millions of square miles of equatorial land mass, because we cut down the tree canopy for biofuel plantations, because someone thought that would actually reduce CO2 emissions...

[a_unique_person]

It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446

Classic piece of misdirection and a false dichotomy. Whatever you want to call CO2, it's doing what it does in several ways. Selenium can be good for you, too much and it's bad for you. It's not an either or.

[Harpoon]

Yes, Indeed. Just quickly going through a half dozen of the articles, Ecoworld appears to be a credible, unbiased information source.

Oh, oh. I thought it was a 'greenie' willing to continence an opposing view. But if you think it's a credible, unbiased information source, it must be a sock puppet for right-wing, neo-con deniers.;)

[CapelDodger]

It looks like you've kicked Monckton around sufficiently. But I found EcoWorld's editor's preface to running Monckton's inconvenient list refreshing. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446

I like it :).

Monckton? They're reduced to that?

[CapelDodger]

Yes. Seeking true comedy (of errors) look to Bali.

You're hot for Monckton, and this is your comment on Bali? That's comedy.

eta : I notice Al Gore's back. Once that monkey's on your back, I guess you just can't kick it of. At times of stress, bam, it's back.

[CapelDodger]

The antarctic is a special case, due to the polar vortex, that creates a localised climate. The models are not perfect, and there was never any claim they were. The global temperature is rising, as predicted, the Antarctic peninsula is heating, as predicted.

Yes, he's back in town. The red highlights gvies it away. It takes him a while to scavenge this stuff up, I notice.

The Antarctic, a contrarian refuge of choice. It is, apparently, treated differently by models, which is hardly surprising given that's a continental landmass at a pole with some humungous mountains in the centre of it. That's what I call different.

The Arctic is treated differently again by models, from what I've heard. Very suspicious :rolleyes:.

Rubbish. This is the sort of thing that happens when you let children play with razor blades. Tsonis is talking about stable states in chaotic systems. He agrees that global warming is real

And Tsonis and all and ... I can't really be bothered. I'm more interested in why 180-odd countries signed-up to taking AGW serously at Bali, despite Lucifage Rocifale's spoon-fed science and the esteemed Monckton. It's all out there in the public arena, after all. They must have heard about it, yet remain unpersuaded.


etc, etc.

Quite.

Notice who's not that bothered about AGW? Canada and Russia are in there, and sod the Southern Hemisphere. The Japanese are in there as well, and the Pacific laughs at hemispheres ... And then, of course, you've got Indonesia as a neighbour.

Glad to hear about the drizzle, but I can't stress enough how much I think you and yours should liquidate and decamp, starting the process as soon as possible. You can rip-off the Japanese about now, but that window of opportunity is closing.

Old South Wales is a refuge in comparison.

[mhaze]

Oh, oh. I thought it was a 'greenie' willing to continence an opposing view. But if you think it's a credible, unbiased information source, it must be a sock puppet for right-wing, neo-con deniers.;)

I figured it to be the work of right wing, neo-con, heavy drinking, pickup truck driving, Bush loving oil company shills, operatives who for years gained the trust of unsuspecting, naive, gullible greenies, but whom secretly were awaiting the signal, upon which they would rise up.

Oops. Someone already came up with that conspiracy theory.:cool:

[Harpoon]

Classic piece of misdirection and a false dichotomy. Whatever you want to call CO2, it's doing what it does in several ways. Selenium can be good for you, too much and it's bad for you. It's not an either or.

I haven't had the time or inclination to read the viscount's entire, tiddy list debunking him who should not be named, but since most of what I read and hear through the media is misdirection and false dichotomies, I'll concur by default.

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance. When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

Salt is necessary to life. Too much of it, you're mummified. Water is fundamental; too much and you're carp food. Blankets also are necessary (at this latitude and altitude); too much and you'll overheat and maybe suffocate.

Handling CO2, and as you know it has many industrial uses, does not require hazarous material practices. Living near an emission source does not endanger your health -- as for other substances in the emission: that may be a different matter;).

But our societal carbon emissions must be regulated. There are a myriad-and-a-half reasons why we will benefit from reducing use and eventually getting off fossil fuels, and AGW appears it can be the cause to stimulate broad-based, grass-roots actions.

Let's keep it accurate, however. I know it's nice to fudge facts just a little to improve the argument. After all it could win ya an Oscar or some dynamite other prize (Sorry, CD, it just haaad to come out! :boggled:).

[a_unique_person]

I haven't had the time or inclination to read the viscount's entire, tiddy list debunking him who should not be named, but since most of what I read and hear through the media is misdirection and false dichotomies, I'll concur by default.

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance. When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

Salt is necessary to life. Too much of it, you're mummified. Water is fundamental; too much and you're carp food. Blankets also are necessary (at this latitude and altitude); too much and you'll overheat and maybe suffocate.

Handling CO2, and as you know it has many industrial uses, does not require hazarous material practices. Living near an emission source does not endanger your health -- as for other substances in the emission: that may be a different matter;).

But our societal carbon emissions must be regulated. There are a myriad-and-a-half reasons why we will benefit from reducing use and eventually getting off fossil fuels, and AGW appears it can be the cause to stimulate broad-based, grass-roots actions.

Let's keep it accurate, however. I know it's nice to fudge facts just a little to improve the argument. After all it could win ya an Oscar or some dynamite other prize (Sorry, CD, it just haaad to come out! :boggled:).


Dictionary definition

pollution noun the adverse effect on the natural environment, including human, animal or plant life, of a harmful substance that does not occur naturally, eg industrial and radioactive waste, or the concentration to harmful levels of a naturally occurring substance, eg nitrates. See also air pollution (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?xref=21C00810&title=21st&query=air%20pollution), water pollution (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?xref=21C47667&title=21st&query=water%20pollution).


Sounds fair enough to me. A level of a naturally occuring substance can be very harmful. Eg, breathing pure CO2.

[a_unique_person]

Why dealing with global warming won't actually cost us so much money.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/ross-gittins/2007/12/18/1197740268980.html



It is an exaggeration that our exports will be hurt by emissions cuts.
YOU get the feeling that Kevin Rudd, while terribly proud of having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is just a little bit wary of breaking the news about what reducing climate change will actually involve in terms of cost to wallets and purses. This may explain why in Bali he was so coy about his attitude towards the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020.
Rudd doesn't have to make up his mind about that until he receives the report and recommendations of Professor Ross Garnaut in the middle of next year.
The politically attuned know it hasn't yet dawned on many people that doing something about climate change involves more than signing international agreements and will increase the prices we pay for electricity, gas and petrol.
The politically attuned also say the cost of reducing emissions will be high. Fortunately, the best evidence suggests that the cost is quite manageable.
The widespread fear that the economic cost of limiting climate change will be prohibitive or will demand tough changes in people's lifestyles arises partly from well-meaning misapprehension, but also from the misrepresentations of the global-warming sceptics.
It's easily done. Say I produce a study that estimates that limiting emissions will have a cost of 3% gross domestic product or, in today's dollars, about $35 billion. Sounds pretty expensive, eh?
But it's not as bad as it's made to sound. The first thing I omitted to tell you was that the 3% loss was a cumulative loss that takes 20 or 30 years to build up. The loss averages just 0.1% of GDP a year.
The other thing I omitted to say was that it's not an absolute loss, just an opportunity cost. That is, it's not that GDP will fall by 0.1% a year, but that it will grow by 0.1% a year less than it otherwise would.
To put it another way, the economy will keep growing quite strongly despite our efforts to reduce emissions. The most recent study, conducted for the Climate Institute by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University and others, finds that achieving a reduction in emissions of 20% by 2020 and 60% or more by 2050 would involve economic growth averaging 2.8% a year rather than 2.9%. This is broadly in line with what other studies have found.




So what is all the fuss about. It appears to be the fear the a few greenie extremists will be seen to have won.

[mhaze]

Strawman argument; has no relation to actual economic studies, whether Stern Nordhaus, Lomborg, Klaus, etc.

Example: Just for Kyoto, Norway jacked up every household's utility bill by $466 USD.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

And Tsonis and all and ... I can't really be bothered. I'm more interested in why 180-odd countries signed-up to taking AGW serously at Bali, despite Lucifage Rocifale's spoon-fed science and the esteemed Monckton. It's all out there in the public arena, after all. They must have heard about it, yet remain unpersuaded.


It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html
One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories) and ratifying it in 1998. A list (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/comparative_international_statistics/climate_environment/) of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.


Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710
(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007) — The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.
They’ve been doing this all along. This is about shutting out opinions that don’t agree with the direction they’re headed in like a runaway train.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim “the science is settled.”



But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

[fsol]

It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html


Kyoto entered into force in February 2005. Not surprisingly the EU-ETS also started in 2005.

Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710
(http://caosblog.com/6710)

I see your blog and raise you one of these...

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

Who are the ICSC anyway? Did we ever figure that out?


But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

[fsol]

I'm reminded here of one of AUP's best comebacks, which I shall quote hoping you get the irony (my intent), and not the affront (unclear which way he meant it)-

"Feeling lucky, punk?"

Uncertainty is well discussed in the paper, and spun out of context in RC. I have no problem with the handling of uncertainty vs. range or the choice of the standard deviation definition. Do you?

The paper asserts that their own way is better than the method that everyone else seems to use. I see no reason to take them at their word. I haven't seen people pointing to commentaries on the papers concerned pointing out the errors of their statistical analysis. I wonder if there will be a commentary published for this paper.

As for the choice of RAOBCORE v.12 vs. v1.4? Beats me. We can just let Douglass et al. explain that. No doubt there is a good reason. If it does not surface in a few days I'll email them.The issue here, as noted elsewhere, is that by not acknowledging, or discussing the existence of v1.3 and v1.4 they greatly play down the variability of the observational data. They go so far in their paper to say

There is an enormous ongoing effort to find errors
in the observations that would reduce the disagreement
with the models. Here, the task is daunting since
the various datasets are independently constructed and
one needs to find something wrong with each one
of them. In regard to the observations, Thorne et al.
(2005b) say ‘. . .As a community we must assume that
the latest dataset versions are the best estimates based
upon investigators’ knowledge and experience using the
data’. We agree: the values given are the values we
should use.They then decide (for some reason) to not use the values given. I find it odd.

You've read the paper, then you understand that Douglass et al. discusses this very issue. Is there a point in quoting from the paper to refute the point made poorly by RC? IF RC makes a point that is already discussed in the paper it's somewhat moot, isn't it?If they discuss something and people aren't satisfied with their explanation/reasoning then the point is far from moot. If that were the case then this and the other AGW threads wouldn't exist. From the small amount that I have contributed to them it seems that most of the skeptics arguments are already discussed in the IPCC and so would be by your reasoning moot.
RC rushes out this poorly spun "Rebuttal" (but no one would sign their name to it)Well it's signed "group." Gavin seems to have no problem with explaining the reasoning behind it in the comments.
RC won't link to the actual article (give the audience predigested pap, not real food).

Pap -
1. A soft food for infants, made of bread boiled or softtened in milk or water. 2. Nourishment or support from official patronage; as, treasury pap. [Colloq. & Contemptuous]
Gee, I don't know. "Pap" fits pretty well.:D

The thread has moved on I realise. We can kick this around a bit more if you want, but I think we are unlikely to get beyond "he said, she said" and I have better things to do at this time of year.

[mhaze]

Quote:
Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710


I see your blog and raise you one of these...

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447696b440b688.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9809)

Can we stifle more alarmist links between GW and hurricanes, eg, katrina?

And some more wild Hansen comments?

[CapelDodger]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447696b440b688.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9809)

Can we stifle more alarmist links between GW and hurricanes, eg, katrina?

From the Conclusion

"The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link between increased hurricane intensity and global warming."


Is stifling discussion something you advocate?

And some more wild Hansen comments?

"The White House also sought to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing government climate change reports."

Government climate change reports. Not statements by Hansen. Is this something you advocate? Partisan political interference in taxpayer-funded science?

I'm sure you'll agree the White House hasn't been interfering for the benefit of the AGW argument, but even in the US it's not been very effective in the public mind. And elsewhere even less so, of course. Any thoughts on why that is?

[CapelDodger]

It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

What should worry me? Do I look worried? I've never given the impression that I expect this rigmarole to achieve anything. I said the same about Kyoto at the time. "Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet!". Don't worry about it, nothing's going to happen.

What should perhaps concern you is that what seems to you persuasive - nay, unequivocal - evidence against the very existence of AGW has does not appear so to the movers and shakers in the world. Your opinion remains very much a minority one. And it's not as if this is secret knowledge you're privy to.


Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710

You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that Bali wasn't the climax of a long diplomatic and political process, during which all those "distinguished dissenting scientists" will have had plenty of opportunity to present their arguments, and will have presented them. More than a few at Senator Inhofe's invitation, I wouldn't be surprised. Their published papers will have been freely available, of course. So this is just whining, frankly.

What is this ICSC you mention? Is it new? Did they have the funding available to attend Bali? The hotel and restaurant prices were astronomical, there were journalists living on sandwiches posted to them daily. I doubt this was a serious effort, just something to sustain contrarians.

But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

Maybe you should start wondering why your neck of the woods has become increasingly marginalised over the decades. 180-odd governments agreed that AGW is a crtical issue that needs to be addressed (not quite yet, of course, but soon). Because of peer-pressure? Where does Common Practice come into it? The signing at Bali was an uncommon event. You don't get that sort of thing every year. Geneva Conventions, Test-Ban Treaty, the CFC thing (Montreal?). Not much else springs to mind.

It often turns out that a shrinking minority turns out to be flat wrong.

How's McIntyre's African project getting on? You brought it up some time ago on the back of his triumphant retrospective cooling of the lower-48, and reported an imminent and significant announcement. Any further news on that?

[CapelDodger]

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html))

Wow. And nobody else noticed, not even back in the 20's and 30's.

Carbon dioxide , you say, ‘could not be the cause’ of warming.


“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history ..."

Current Greenland warming . Not global warming, the rate of which is concerning people across said globe, but Greenland warming. Not surprising few people noticed.

So when you say carbon dioxide "could not be the cause" of warming you mean of that warming. In Greenland. Then. CO2 could very well be the cause of this warming, couldn't it?


Back in the late 20's and 30's there was something known as "The Dust-Bowl" in the US - upwind of Greenland. So yeah, there could well have been another reason for Greenland's warming during that period. Dust, like soot, does get about, and it does make a difference when it settles on ice or snow.


So what's causing this warming? No Dust-Bowl going on, Clean Air Acts in operation, the Sun's doing nothing much. Step forward : AGW by CO2.

eta : use a civilised font, please.

[fsol]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php

[Harpoon]

Sounds fair enough to me. A level of a naturally occuring substance can be very harmful. Eg, breathing pure CO2.

Breathing concentrations of CO2 isn't the damaging factor; it the lack of oxygen. But I agree with your quote and your understanding of it.

When defining CO2 pollution, specifically, I would add only a few amendments: A level of a naturally occuring, harmless, non-toxic substance can be very harmful.

It's possible to communicate the threat we believe CO2 accumulations to be, without inaccurately redefining its physical properties.

[CapelDodger]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php

No surprises there then. And no surprise it didn't come from anyone that introduced the ICSC. Perhaps they were afraid to look. It's all getting pretty desperate over there, isn't it?

I reckon the tipping-point was Crichton; Bellamy and more recently Monckton demonstrate, to my mind, a distinct downward trend. At least Chrichton was well-known outside the ever-tighter contrarian spiral. Bellamy had at least been on TV.

Monckton? Who saw that coming :confused:?

[a_unique_person]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php



To determine a temperature baseline for predicting response to solar cycles 24 and 25 (we’re currently in 23), Archibald takes a startling approach. Instead of using world-wide temperature data, only data from the US mainland is used. Additionally, Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!

Go Archibald. Go E&E.

I'll just wait for climateaudit to comment on this one.....

I'll just sit here and tap my foot for a while......


.....


...


tap, tap, tap....

[CapelDodger]

Go Archibald. Go E&E..

It's pathetically obvious that the posters who introduced the ICSC didn't have a clue what it was. They were referred to it by trusted sources, and it makes the noises they want to hear. It sounds impressive enough, I guess, to the easily impressed.

[CapelDodger]

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance.

The point is that Monckton introduced the idea that CO2 as a toxin has anything to do with the subject. He brings it in to knock it down. A classic strawman. misdirection, and generally what you'd expect from a fart like Monckton.

When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

You misinterpreted aup, I think. Too much CO2 is harmful by another mechanism than poison. Nobody before Monckton suggested anything different. So why did he? We know why : misdirection to a strawman.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by fsol
Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
I'll just wait for climateaudit to comment on this one.....
I'll just sit here and tap my foot for a while......
.....
...
tap, tap, tap....

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC! (http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm)

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

[CapelDodger]

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC! (http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm)

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

To post someone else's compilation requires no thought at all, and to bring up the ICSC at this juncture is nothing short of thick-headed.

Do you, mhaze, have anything to say about anything? Anything at all? Anything defending the ICSC as remotely credible would be too much to ask, so I don't ask it. I merely ask for something that you actually have to say for yourself.

It goes wthout saying that I'll be disappointed by anything that involves Al Gore, and mockery might well ensue. Nobody wants that.

[a_unique_person]

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC! (http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm)

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

That whould be "Doctor" John McLean, would it. Reminds me of that Mel Brooks sketch.

[Harpoon]

You misinterpreted aup, I think. Too much CO2 is harmful by another mechanism than poison. Nobody before Monckton suggested anything different. So why did he? We know why : misdirection to a strawman.

Not being a Royals fan, I knew nothing about Monckton until one of the newspaper's readers sent me an e-mail about that EcoWorld article that quoted his list. Between work and the holiday, I didn't have time to read the entire lengthy thing.

But, you may recall, I've got personal reasons for my position. I had published what was basically a paraphrase of Wikipedia's entry on CO2 in the newspaper because several of my readers had asked me if it was poisonous. I explained it was not, although it could be dangerous under the correct conditions. It was its growing accumulation in the atmosphere that was the instant concern.

And that angered the folks at RealClimate, which brought in the cavalry from ClimateAudit. (I'm sorry, I can't see how either RC or CA can be taken too seriously. They're too factional to be capable of any kind of objectivity, much less scientific objectivity).

Nonetheless, I don't think it's irrelevant to keep the discussion about AGW as accurate as possible, not just scientifically, but linguistically, as well.

But by all means, accomplish a worthy goal at the mere cost of the language. :(;):cool:

[CapelDodger]

Not being a Royals fan, I knew nothing about Monckton until one of the newspaper's readers sent me an e-mail about that EcoWorld article that quoted his list. Between work and the holiday, I didn't have time to read the entire lengthy thing.

But, you may recall, I've got personal reasons for my position. I had published what was basically a paraphrase of Wikipedia's entry on CO2 in the newspaper because several of my readers had asked me if it was poisonous. I explained it was not, although it could be dangerous under the correct conditions. It was its growing accumulation in the atmosphere that was the instant concern.

I do recall, and I recall how the Monckton-friendly blogosphere dragged you into limelight you weren't seeking. Monckton, on the other hand, does seek the limelight. It's the likes of Monckton that bring up the idea of CO2 as a poison in order to knock it down; it's some of your readers who do not read beyond that point.

Nobody else is out there claiming that CO2 is poisonous, there are only claims that such people exist as a prelude to rubbishing the idea. Which is, of course, rubbish, and makes it a perfect strawman. Some people actually get frightened by strawmen, but that's people for you. None too bright, on average.

And that angered the folks at RealClimate, which brought in the cavalry from ClimateAudit. (I'm sorry, I can't see how either RC or CA can be taken too seriously. They're too factional to be capable of any kind of objectivity, much less scientific objectivity).

RealClimate - by which I mean the bloggers behind it - wasn't angered by that. As I recall there was a misunderstanding on that point, but by then another of your articles was already being trumpeted by ClimateAudit and the rest of the anti-AGW blogosphere. There was no reponse from RC before they were asked for one because it became so big in what is a desperate enclave. Desperate enough to promote a fart like Monckton. It's a dream come true for him.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's irrelevant to keep the discussion about AGW as accurate as possible, not just scientifically, but linguistically, as well.

But by all means, accomplish a worthy goal at the mere cost of the language. :(;):cool:

You can rest assured that I will not do that. I have a particular affection for the English language. And another one for science. None for Monckton.

By the way, real British aristocracy despises the Royal Family - aka "the Germans". The Hanoverians were a step too far. Monckton's affinity - even as a wannabe real aristocrat - is with the Thatcherite Tories, who are a weird and wonderful clique. Weirder than the Bush White House, if you can picture that, and Monckton was on the fringe of that. Thatcher's lot were actually up for AGW because it was an argument for nuclear power (and the nuclear weapons capability that comes with it).

It's all rather complicated, you have to have mixed with these people to get any sort of grip on them.

[Harpoon]

...It's all rather complicated, you have to have mixed with these people to get any sort of grip on them.

No thanks.

[mhaze]

That whould be "Doctor" John McLean, would it. Reminds me of that Mel Brooks sketch.

Whom you had accused of lying about having a Phd.

Either he is lying or you are. Who is it?

Put up or shut up.

http://mclean.ch/climate/EE%2017-1_03%20McLean%20ok.pdf

Do you intend, after clear is up who is lying (McLean or yourself) to present some peer reviewed, published rebuttal to the scientific work of McLean?

Or more vacuous, circuitous ad hominems?

[lenny]

Agreed. Where it gets muddy is whether (1) the modelers do a decent job of forecasting climate based on the applicable subset of principles fronted by Armstrong (2) whether Chapter 8 does a decent job of summarizing the predictive merits of these models and their faults (again based on the applicable subset of principles).
before applying Armstrongs principles, one has to establish that each principles applied is relevant to forecasting climate. stating that Armstrong says that they are
Armstrong says -
econometric methods are not confined to economic problems, but can be applied to forecasting in situations where you have theories about what causes changes in the thing that you are forecasting.).

doesn't count!

thanks for the intro to the audit software. i'll stick with the lists he gives in the paper (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf) for now.


How do we understand the merits (or lack of) of Armstrong's method?


we cannot do that by merely running his audit, he did that already.

don't you find it odd that few (i know of none) physical scientists subscribe to Armstrongs approach?

Principles can be marked as "Not applicable".


good! but he did not use this option often in his criticism of IPCC. and so i, not unsurprisingly, i would like to classify the "Principles" he claims are applicable into my categories:

irrelevant (unlikely to apply when forecasting any physical system)
unhelpful (unlikely to be of use in the particular system under consideration)
unprincipled (eg attacks properties of the question, not the problem soln)
naive (wonderful in principle, but displaying an ivory tower separation from the facts on the ground)
agreed (already widely implemented)
on target (under-appreciated or overlooked, and carrying nontrivial implications for climate science)


and feel most of his listed complaints fall in one or more of the first five. which of his principles do you feel fall into the on target box? surely not all of them?

i believe that this is an important paper, as i expect many more papers from honest, well-meaning "forecasters" with little experience of forecasting physical systems will appear shortly. these papers could needlessly damage the credibility of climate science, but they could also bring valuable insights. anyone else interested in using this paper to practice sorting out which Principles are relevant?

[a_unique_person]

Whom you had accused of lying about having a Phd.

Either he is lying or you are. Who is it?

Put up or shut up.

http://mclean.ch/climate/EE%2017-1_03%20McLean%20ok.pdf

Do you intend, after clear is up who is lying (McLean or yourself) to present some peer reviewed, published rebuttal to the scientific work of McLean?

Or more vacuous, circuitous ad hominems?

He certainly doesn't refer to himself as Doctor there? Must have been recently awarded his doctorate by Morano, maybe.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Whom you had accused of lying about having a Phd.
Either he is lying or you are. Who is it? Put up or shut up.
http://mclean.ch/climate/EE%2017-1_03%20McLean%20ok.pdf

Do you intend, after clear is up who is lying (McLean or yourself) to present some peer reviewed, published rebuttal to the scientific work of McLean? Or more vacuous, circuitous ad hominems?
He certainly doesn't refer to himself as Doctor there? Must have been recently awarded his doctorate by Morano, maybe.

More vacuous, circuitous ad hominems?

Hint: You can disrespect public figures such as Gore, but not a good idea to do it with private individuals. You know, libel? Especially with an Aussie from Melbourne.

[Harpoon]

Have a cool yule, everyone.
Capel Dodger! An acquaintance living in Jalisco, Mexico, is sending me a bottle of anejo (don't know how to type an "n" with a tilda on this critter). I'd send it to you, except for that carbon footprint thing;).
Well, I'm minutes away from a single malt (it's still morning, but 'tis the Eve of Merriment), so merry, merry and a jolly joy, too!

[a_unique_person]

More vacuous, circuitous ad hominems?

Hint: You can disrespect public figures such as Gore, but not a good idea to do it with private individuals. You know, libel? Especially with an Aussie from Melbourne.

I am saying that there is that the John McLean referred to by Morano is not a doctor of anything, he is a self described amateur in the climate field who is an IT data analyst. Morano appears to have given him the title of Dr.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3754

Perhaps he has him confused with this guy.

http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/?id=24

It's just one more hatchet job by Morano that misses the mark by a mile.

[varwoche]

That he [Senator James Inhofe] considers AGW a hoax makes him a nut? No, that makes him rational. I've started a thread in the appropriate section in case you'd like to explain this curious statement.

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463)

[CapelDodger]

Have a cool yule, everyone.
Capel Dodger! An acquaintance living in Jalisco, Mexico, is sending me a bottle of anejo (don't know how to type an "n" with a tilda on this critter). I'd send it to you, except for that carbon footprint thing;).
Well, I'm minutes away from a single malt (it's still morning, but 'tis the Eve of Merriment), so merry, merry and a jolly joy, too!

Heartfelt apologies for not responding sooner, but only varwoche's thread-necromancy brought your post to my attention. From the date-and-time stamp I was already on the good side of jolly by then, and so it went for some days. An Irish malt this time, and a bottle of tequila I was gifted with. Everything worked out splendidily, and I hope the same for you and yours.

[CapelDodger]

I've started a thread in the appropriate section in case you'd like to explain this curious statement.

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463)

I'm drawn, but you have to appreciate that I'm white-knuckle sober from the Politics Forum, and I've accepted that I always will be. CT threatens to drag me off the wagon I'm desperately clinging onto.

Thank f**k I can cope with alcohol and other drugs, otherwise life wouldn't be worth living.

[mhaze]

I thought the mods had said no more GW except in the moderated thread? Has that changed?